Questions.

we have evidence that the universe is expanding away form a certain point.


Red-shift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
Objects are moving away from each other. The obvious counterpoint is that they were once closer together.

Background residue from Big Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discove...ound_radiation

Cohesive outlined argument for Big Bang
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
Reply With Quote



PS.
I find it funny how you simplified the term oscillating big bang theory into two rocks colliding.

PPS.
people usually simplify things to save scarce mental resources.

 

It's a presumption to assume that everything was created. I don't mean to say that it isn't the case, but I will not accept creation without proof. And quite honestly, a feat of extraordinary ability doesn't classify one as a god, just as advanced.

Let's say there is a 'God'... How do we judge his methods for 'Creation'? Moreover, how do we assign a status to him when we can't even comprehend the necessity for creating a universe? My point here being, we cannot call him "The creator of all" when we know nothing of before, or how he is. Religion relies on faith, not on thought.

If you think about religious beliefs long enough, you'll notice most of it doesn't make a lick of sense.

What reason is there for getting up in the morning? What reason is there for sleeping at night? Eating? Drinking? Moving???

The reason to do right is for survival. Your next question is a little less vague, but down to the point would be... doing the 'wrong' thing would result a personal loss for you.

Right and wrong are currently defined by societal views, indeed. Religion plays some part in it, but that's being removed slowly as we move through the generations. A few decades ago, atheists were considered communists, now we're being respected for our views.

If you wanna get into the nitty gritty, I define right and wrong by what would benefit me the most, and cause me the least grief. It's all done through survival instincts, and while that may upset some of the people who try to put a philosophical spin on right and wrong... it's true. We do the right thing to survive, we don't do the wrong thing to survive.

Even religious people follow this code, they just don't realize it because they cover it up with a 'higher' purpose. "I do good so I can have eternity in heaven". Which is the basic premise of all survival instincts... do the best you can to maximize profits and minimize losses. If you go to hell, you'll be in pain for all eternity. If you go to heaven, you'll be in pleasure for all eternity. It's easy to see the choice there.

In the case of an atheist, we don't have such broad examples to follow so we basically have to run with the punches and make rational decisions on a daily basis. In our case, we have to think about what we want, where we want to be, and how we want to get there. This is survival at its finest... And most atheists I know want to survive because we accept that this is all we have and we have to do the best we can with it.

You're actually incorrect. There is no proof that Hydrogen atoms are being 'created', so therefore... one day billions of trillions of years from now... there will be no more hydrogen atoms. When the Hydrogen goes, there'll be no more light and therefore no more life. The universe will cease to harbor any life one day in the far future.

The Earth will probably be long gone by then, however .

 

A common theory is the Big Bang Theory, however apparently debates here which I'm unable to locate suggest that If you take into account the whole Big Bang Theory and emulate it the results are not consistent with the Universe we life in today.
I have also heard Sythe talk of an, "Electrical Universe Theory" However I know virtually nothing about that.


Ill skip question 2 as question 3 covers it.

What defines both right and wrong? It's in the eye of the beholder. There is no such thing as a right act, or a wrong act. It's different for each country.

Personally I distinguish between right and wrong with the intent to do good or bad to someone, thing, entity.

As for religion and morals, my personal standpoint is religion has nothing to do with morals. If religion was never made, morals would've still existed.